What are the considerations in choosing between "load", "prefer",
"round-robin", and "split" balance algorithms?
"load" is currently not good at high loads, pr's pending...
so change it to round-robin?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing lis
Gabriel Lavoie wroted:
As I asked in another thread, what is the problem with the "load" algorith?
I've already pointed you in the other tread to
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=113885 :)
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
___
free
As I asked in another thread, what is the problem with the "load" algorith?
Thanks
2008/11/6 Volodymyr Kostyrko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Carl wrote:
>
> What are the considerations in choosing between "load", "prefer",
>> "round-robin", and "split" balance algorithms?
>>
>
> "load" is currently no
Carl wrote:
What are the considerations in choosing between "load", "prefer",
"round-robin", and "split" balance algorithms?
"load" is currently not good at high loads, pr's pending...
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
___
freebsd-questions@f
I thought the -s option was only applicable when using "-b split" for the
balancing algorithm. Does "round-robin" not mean simply alternating
between the two disks without ever splitting requests?
no. it means for example with -s 65536 and 1MB request - it will split this
request on 2 disks
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
disk will be overwritten). Add another disk to this mirror, so
it will
be synchronized with existing disk:
gmirror label -v -b round-robin data da0
add -s like -s 1048576 to prevent splitting one
request on 2 disks.
I thought the -s option was only
disk will be overwritten). Add another disk to this mirror, so it
will
be synchronized with existing disk:
gmirror label -v -b round-robin data da0
add -s like -s 1048576 to prevent splitting one request
on 2 disks.
I thought the -s option was only applicable when using
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> Andrew Falanga wrote:
Identical drive models so their sizes are the same. Is this the
command, from gmirror(8), the one I'll want to use?
Create a mirror on disk with valid data (note that the last sector of the
disk will be overwritten). Add another disk to th
Hello,
> I swear by gmirror, I had very good experience with it and will use it in the
> future
> again. I just need to find some time to attach the two identical HDD's to my
> via c7 system.
Actually, you don't need two identical HDD to make a gmirror. It's just
important, that
the one, you a
Wednesday, October 1, 2008 6:34 AM
From:
"Andrew Falanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
"freebsd-questions@freebsd.org"
Hi,
I've just finished setting up a new web server, and if I get my DNS
stuff correct hopefully an e-mail server too, for my church.
Originally, the intention was to use R
There is also one difference which you're forgetting: booting.
for me there is no problem. simply put /boot at the beginning of mirror or
small partition
it's that simple
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailma
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:19:01AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> And what exactly do you classify controllers such as the Promise TX4310
>> and the Promise S150 SX4 as? The TX4310 could be classified as
>> "software RAID", but a few of the features are offloaded onto the
>> controller. The SX4
And what exactly do you classify controllers such as the Promise TX4310
and the Promise S150 SX4 as? The TX4310 could be classified as
"software RAID", but a few of the features are offloaded onto the
controller. The SX4 is the same way, but has actual on-board cache.
si it do something by har
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:22:20AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> with regards to Intel MatrixRAID, here you go:
>>
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting
>>
>> And yes, these are FreeBSD problems, but the severity is so high that
>> there is a very good chance y
with regards to Intel MatrixRAID, here you go:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/ATA_issues_and_troubleshooting
And yes, these are FreeBSD problems, but the severity is so high that
there is a very good chance you will lose your data in the case of a
failure. Simply put, don't risk it.
B
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:34:53PM -0600, Andrew Falanga wrote:
> I've just finished setting up a new web server, and if I get my DNS
> stuff correct hopefully an e-mail server too, for my church.
> Originally, the intention was to use RAID1 on the MOBO. However, the
> RAID controller on the MOBO
Hi,
I've just finished setting up a new web server, and if I get my DNS
stuff correct hopefully an e-mail server too, for my church.
Originally, the intention was to use RAID1 on the MOBO. However, the
do not ever use "hardware" RAID0/1/10 on motherboard.
first it's not hardware, it's purely s
Hi,
I've just finished setting up a new web server, and if I get my DNS
stuff correct hopefully an e-mail server too, for my church.
Originally, the intention was to use RAID1 on the MOBO. However, the
RAID controller on the MOBO consistently tried to make the SATA DVD
drive part of the RAID arra
18 matches
Mail list logo
